Christians and the Creation Science Museum

[Kenny]

I uderstand that they actually do have a pretty good planetarium. I would be interested in seeing that but personally I would avoid the rest of the place unless I wanted a good laugh.

The planetarium was cool, but it miffed me that we had to shell out extra cash to get in (as if the admission price wasn't already high enough!)

[DanK]

Hmm, believing the Biblical account of Creation "give[s] Christians a bad name."

The (there's a lot to be said for being disliked or unaccepted by the right kinds of people) Curtmudgeon

No, believing the Biblical account of creation does not give Christians a bad name. First of all, that Biblical account does not necessitate a young earth, but I don't really feel like getting too involved in that debate right now. Either way, I really don't have a problem with people believing YEC. The thing that is frustrating is the attitude that's so prevalent among them that any other idea is anti-Christian. That kind of belligerence is the reason that places like the Creation Museum exist, and that's what gives Christians a bad name...

[rogue06]

Rogue, I've been studying science as well as the Bible for probably longer than you've been alive -- do you really think that that video has anything new I haven't read? If the author does have something new scientifically, point me at their publications.

I’m over 50. Now how long have you been studying science and the Bible?

Seriously, I don’t doubt your scholarship in the least, but you are assuming that this has to do with a Biblical claim. I thought I made that clear when I said they were teaching “superhyperfragilisticmicromacroevolution" – though in an attempt to explain the wide variety of species that exists since the Flood. It just seems odd considering that in the same breath they assert that evolution is anti-God.

But is really ironic is your chiding me for saying I wouldn’t be interested in the museum-proper (though I would be interested in the planetarium) unless I wanted a good laugh...

I've never understood people who don't want to learn. But please yourself.

...and now stubbornly refuse to look at something

Some of the most learned Hebrew language scholars, including ones that do not accept a literal understanding of the Creation or Flood accounts, admit that the Hebrew language as used in those passages is written with the intention of portraying a literal six-day Creation week and a year-long global Flood.

Agreed. But I think you’ll find that some of the most learned Hebrew language scholars admit that the firmament is being described as a solid structure. But we now realize that this interpretation is incorrect and that it should properly be understood as an expanse. But nobody I’m aware of held that view until recent centuries.

Your contention is like saying "It's noon locally" is merely an interpretation of the statement "The sun is at its zenith."

BOOOOOINNGGGG! Thanx for substantiating your lack of knowledge in this area. No, what caused the medieval Church to reject the theories of Copernicus and Galileo was the fact that the Church fathers had chosen to make Aristotle's philosophical ideas the filter through which to interpret the Bible text. The arguments against Copernicus and Galileo were made by the scientists of the day, and their theories were condemned because they conflicted with Aristotle, not the Bible.

Don’t confuse summarizing in a single sentence with a lack of knowledge and/or understanding.

The Church wasn’t defending Aristotle’s philosophical ideas but rather the plain and simple reading of the Bible that supported a geocentric model. If Aristotle’s theories hadn’t matched their Scriptural presumptions they would have hardly have adapted it – rightly or wrongly.

When St. Roberto Bellarmine, who was on friendly terms with Galileo, wrote about his works “His pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation,” he wasn’t worried about defending Aristotle. Nor was he when he said: “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin.” Likewise when he wrote that “To affirm that the sun … is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting Scriptures.”

And it doesn’t sound like unanimous opinion of the Inquisition at Rome seem to care about science when they declared in 1615 (IIRC): “The first proposition, that the sun is the center and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture;” and “the second proposition, that the earth is not the center but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith.”*

And as I noted, that was from someone who liked Galileo. Those who didn’t, such as the Jesuit Father Melchior Inchofer who was less reserved in his judgment: “ The opinion of the earth’s motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves.”

The Finding of the Congregation of the Index February 2, 1616 (and later attached to a Papal Bull by Pope Paul V) read, “The doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Scripture” not “entirely contrary to Aristotle.”

And it wasn’t just the Catholics but the Protestants as well who attacked heliocentrism on Scriptural grounds rather than scientific grounds.

The thing is the Catholics at least didn’t have a problem with heliocentrism being taught as a theory – just not as a fact. Substitute “evolution” for heliocentrism in that sentence and it’s amazing how the more things have changed the more they have stayed the same.

You've made the point that you have no understanding of the origins of these interpretations.

You’ve made a lot of assumptions here Curt, starting with your erroneous estimate of my age. The assumptions haven’t gotten any more accurate as you went along.

The problem was never with the Biblical text; the problem was the acceptance of Aristotle's philosophies as "inerrant".

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree that it isn’t or never was a problem with the text but with the interpretation or reading of it. The great Jewish rabbi and thinker Moses Maimonides (d.1204) put it well when he wrote “Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible.”

No, these beliefs, when and where they were held, were supported by an appeal to Aristotlean ideas. Where Biblical texts were referenced at all, they were filtered through Aristotle.

Let me rephrase that to say that the various things I mentioned (geocentric system, a solid firmament, heavenly bodies affixed to the firmament, the moon as a source of light, nobody alive at the antipodes) were supported by what was believed to be a clear and simple reading of the Bible.

The (studying the history of science is something that I highly recommend to anyone engaged in these arguments) Curtmudgeon

Just as long as you don’t start with Andrew Dickson White's “History of Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom”



* One more thing from Cardinal Bellarmine:

"I say that, as you know, the Council prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also “the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe." --St. Bellarmine, April 12, 1615, in a letter to Father Foscarini a Carmelite who had presented him with a copy of his recently published study favorable to heliocentrism. Bellarmine acknowledges that if there were real proof in favor of heliocentrism it would be necessary to “proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary”, but refuses to believe that any such proofs exist or could be found.

[rogue06]

If you believe Genesis 1-2 are symbolic, then there's nothing more to talk about. If you believe (as I do) that they are historical, then everything else we see in the world needs to be interpreted through that lens. Not a blind eye, but a recognition that forensic science is just guesswork compared to eyewitness testimony.

Do you take Genesis 1:6-8, 14-18 literally?

[RBerman]

Do you take Genesis 1:6-8, 14-18 literally?

I do.

[DanK]

I do.

How exactly do you justify the morning and evenings mentioned as signifying a 24-hour day like we think of it now, then, if they happened three times before the Sun, upon which the timing of those days is based, was created?

[rogue06]

I'm broke. Access to my bank account is controlled by Liberty Seminary and Amazon, between them. I'm lucky they let me eat lunch, most days.

The (actually, I'm philosophically -- but not Aristotileanly -- opposed to the ban auction) Curtmudgeon

Drat. And here I'm being especially obnoxious all for naught.


ETA: Ah, I see the thread has been moved.

[rogue06]

Nowhere as you phrase it, of course. However, Genesis, along with the other historical books of the OT, is full of lists of people's life-times and when their children were born, and it takes only a slight effort to add up all the numbers. And if it is too much effort, there are plenty of others who have already done so.



First, you do realise that those are two different questions, right? I only say this because some people don't -- radiocarbon "dating" has an effective timespan of around 50,000 years, even on the uniformitarians' assumptions, and is not used for dating anything beyond that span including most fossils. And fossils are not dated, as such, by any radioisotope methods, because other than carbon (which, as pointed out, doesn't "reach back" far enough for the uniformitarians' theories) the chemical elements used (except potassium, for the K-Ar method which has been generally discarded by even uniformitarians since it won't conform to their theories rigourously enough) do not occur in animal tissue.

Radiocarbon dating has been primarily used by archaeologists, since the human artefacts which they deal with fall into the proper "time frame". But, funnily enough, radiocarbon dating has generally not been used very much by ANE archaeologists, because the numbers ("ages") generated by the method do not agree very well with historical accounts, even non-Biblical accounts (archaeologists in other parts of the world generally don't have well-dated historical records to use). Since the invention of the dendochronological adjustment scale for radiocarbon dates, the method has begun to be somewhat more popular, since now the archaeologist can simply apply the sliding scale to get a "date" that works, rather than what the radiocarbon method itself indicates.

Radioisotopic methods, in general, are used to "date" geologic, not biologic, material. But the geochronologists throw out any radioisotope "dates" that do not agree with the presupposition of the evolutionary time-scale (i.e., biochronology). They also downplay the number of times when separate measurements of samples from a single source give disparate "dates". They also throw out any "dates" that contradict the presupposition that higher deposits are necessarily "older" than lower deposits -- or else, assume an "overcrop" event even when any geological evidence for an overcrop is totally missing.

The general method underlaying the various radioisotope "dating" schemes rely on several unprovable assumptions:

• There is a known amount of daughter isotopes not caused by radioactive decay in the sample, generally assumed to be 0.
• There was no influx or outflux of either parent or daughter isotope material from the sample from the time it formed to the present.
• The sample has not been exposed to any physical or chemical process which would affect the decay and/or amounts of material in the sample.
• The radioactivity decay rate(s) of the isotopes are known exactly and have been unchanged from the time the sample was formed.

The last assumption is the most contentious, of course. The first one is completely unmeasurable. The middle two have been proven wrong on multiple occasions, even by uniformitarian scientists.

This isn't just some theological stand that is preached in churches deep in the backwoods of southern US states; all of this can be substantiated even by reading uniformitarian scientists themselves. The trick is, they keep their dirty laundry out of the public view. But if you read enough scientific publications (hint: high-school textbooks and newspaper "Science" sections are definitely not scientific publications) or even read surveys of such, you can generally pick out the evidence (although a lot of it is weasel-worded, e.g. they don't come out and say "We discarded 7 out of 10 dating results", but rather something like "of the three good dating results we obtained ..." when the only measure of good v. bad is the presumption of the uniformitarian theories).



As mentioned above, "carbon dating" tells nothing about the age of the earth, even to uniformitarian scientists -- the fact that many people making the argument don't even know that much about the subject tells us a lot about their own understanding of what they're talking about. And your "tangible fossil evidence" doesn't come with date-tags attached; the "dates" are arrived at by applying highly suspicious procedures and throwing out the results that don't please. And the "symbol[ism]" of the passage is an assumption to make it conform (or at least, not contradict) uniformitarian theories that begin with the assumption that the God of the Bible does not exist.

The (if I missed stepping on anybody's toes, I apologise and promise to stomp on them next time) Curtmudgeon

While this wasn’t addressed to me and it’s far from my area of interest (I don’t claim “expertise”), I just want to offer an alternative to Curt’s assertions concerning radiometric dating:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

[The Curtmudgeon]

I’m over 50. Now how long have you been studying science and the Bible?

Then why do I have you pegged as being one of the younguns, along with the likes of Nick, Rayado and Jayce?? You've been hiding your fogyism!

My apologies for accusing you of being young. I've been styuding science and the Bible around 70-80% of your life time (depending of your definition of "over").

Anyway, to all: I'm sorry, but I've been slammed at work, and it doesn't look likely to end before Monday (I may be working this weekend, despite seminary & church responsibilities). The posts since my last reply are too long & deep to be brushed off with a quickie response, but I won't be able to give them the appropriate attention until then.

If I'm not back in this conversation by Tuesday, somebody (Rogue, you're nominated) send me a gentle reminder. If I'm not back by Thursday, you may send me a collection of your best insults.

The (I'd rather have the insults than the mess of broken programming I've got in my lap right now) Curtmudgeon

[rogue06]

Then why do I have you pegged as being one of the younguns, along with the likes of Nick, Rayado and Jayce?? You've been hiding your fogyism!

My apologies for accusing you of being young. I've been styuding science and the Bible around 70-80% of your life time (depending of your definition of "over").

Anyway, to all: I'm sorry, but I've been slammed at work, and it doesn't look likely to end before Monday (I may be working this weekend, despite seminary & church responsibilities). The posts since my last reply are too long & deep to be brushed off with a quickie response, but I won't be able to give them the appropriate attention until then.

If I'm not back in this conversation by Tuesday, somebody (Rogue, you're nominated) send me a gentle reminder. If I'm not back by Thursday, you may send me a collection of your best insults.

The (I'd rather have the insults than the mess of broken programming I've got in my lap right now) Curtmudgeon

Can't I start with the insults? Puh-leeeeze!























No problem on either the age (though I appreciate it far more when younger women think I'm not nearly as decrepit old as I am - based on looks not behavior though) or any delay.

[KBertsche]

The general method underlaying the various radioisotope "dating" schemes rely on several unprovable assumptions:

While it is true that nothing in science can be "proven", the above claim is very misleading. Tests can often be done to verify whether or not these are good assumptions, or to further refine them.

[*]There is a known amount of daughter isotopes not caused by radioactive decay in the sample, generally assumed to be 0.

This can often be verified. Some techniques (e.g. 39Ar-40Ar) can account for and subtract out any initial daughter isotopes. For cosmogenic isotopes (e.g. 14C), the amount of daughter isotope is irrelevant.

[*]There was no influx or outflux of either parent or daughter isotope material from the sample from the time it formed to the present.

Again, this can often be verified. Techniques which rely on sample heating and isochrons (e.g. Rb-Sr, K-Ar) can generally distinguish between isotopes present when the minerals crystalized and ones which flowed in or out later.

[*]The sample has not been exposed to any physical or chemical process which would affect the decay and/or amounts of material in the sample.

We know of nothing which will materially affect the decay rates of any isotopes used for dating.

[*]The radioactivity decay rate(s) of the isotopes are known exactly and have been unchanged from the time the sample was formed.

Again, we know of nothing which can change the decay rates.

The last assumption is the most contentious, of course. The first one is completely unmeasurable. The middle two have been proven wrong on multiple occasions, even by uniformitarian scientists.

I have never seen the term "uniformitarian scientist" used by anyone except YECs, who use it to justify their rejection of real science and their attempt to replace it with pseudoscience.

As Rogue06 says, the Wiens article is excellent. I second his recommendation.

[The Curtmudgeon]

I'm going to have to beg off after all; I'm stealing time from my seminary coursework just to post this. It's because of my off-hour studies that I've pretty much only been posting in the (more or less) "silly" threads (or at least, ones that don't require any time or thought to post in) for the past eight or nine months. I started on this thread when it appeared to be just about the Creation Museum, and then let myself get dragged into a deeper discussion on the issues of the age of the earth just before getting slammed at work.

My apologies to all involved. I suppose this does look like I'm running away from a losing position, but I assure you that is not my intent and I do not feel that I hold a losing position in the least; I've just lost all convenient time at present to present my case and answer your challenges.

If my combined workload does ease up soon, I will make this thread my top priority among serious threads. Until then, you'll have to make do with finding me only in the non-time-consuming areas, if you find me here at all.

The (okay, start throwing the vegetables -- I'm off stage now) Curtmudgeon

[oxmixmudd]

What about carbon dating and fossil records dating back millions of years?

Carbon dating (c14) is only good to about 50,000 years ago (at best!). Still, a lot older than YEC allows for though. Other dating methods do reveal items quite a bit older than C14 dating can: in the millions and even billions of years.

As for the thread being about the creation museum - I would think even so discussion of evidence presented by said museum should be fair game for discussion - No?

Jim